fcc – Page 7 – Engineering Radio

FCC authority to conduct warrentless searches of Private Property

I was this interesting tidbit on the Radio World website the other day. The question is, how much authority does the FCC have to conduct a search of a private residence? The Electronic Frontier Foundation wanted to know therefore they sent a FOIA request to the FCC seeking documents supporting this claimed authority.

The documents received seem to be redacted and some are mostly blank, such as the training module on how to obtain permission to enter private property is supposed to take 6 hours to complete, but consists of 3 paragraphs and 2 questions. Hopefully, that is redacted and does not reflect on the quality of agents the FCC is employing these days. The upshot seems to be the agent either needs a warrant or permission.

It may be surprising to some citizens, however, the FCC does have the authority to investigate radio signals, whether they are intentionally generated, as in a pirate broadcaster, or unintentionally generated, as in a piece of gear gone bad.

According to federal regulations, an FCC agent may request entry to inspect a private building anytime he/she believes there may be a device emitting radio frequency energy. This includes anything with an FCC part 15 sticker, which can be computers, TV remote controls, garage door openers, WiFi network routers, etc. This basically covers every house in the US as well as most businesses. Those rules were written when most homes and businesses did not have any RF generating devices and there was little to indicate that they ever would.

The consequence of failure to allow an FCC field agent into a residence or business appears to be the issuance of a citation in the form of a threatening letter. Continued intransigence would be met with a NAL (Notice of Apparent Liability) followed by a forfeiture notice also known as a fine. The typical FCC fine these days seems to be $10,000.00. If it is a repeated and willful violation, the equipment can be ceased and the perpetrator arrested.

In instances where the safety of life is in question, then every step necessary to disable the offending device needs to be taken. Things like transmitters spurring into aircraft frequencies or TV antenna amplifiers running wide open, also interfering with aircraft frequencies come to mind.

One of the examples given details a field agent trying to track down a noisy cable TV amplifier. From the FCC field agent’s perspective, the homeowner appears to be a royal pain in the ass. In this day and age when everything has a computer and most of them generate RF, tracking down interference can be a painstaking process, especially where housing is dense. Uncooperative homeowners, especially dumb ones, who have no idea what they have plugged in only make things worse.

Still, there is the issue of fourth amendment rights, which, if the above law was misinterpreted, misused, or applied with the wrong standard would likely be trampled. In these days of extra-constitutional activity, giving Los Federales entry into one’s house might invite unwanted scrutiny by other agencies. As far as changing the rules, with the current group of scoundrels and rouges in the legislative branch, one might end up with something ten times worse than before.

I-Buzz

Rumor has it that iBiquity is going to release a software upgrade for the AM IBOC system they peddle. Allegedly it is going to improve the sound quality of the digital signal, allow the analog signal to increase its bandwidth to 10 kHz, and provide data such as song titles. No word on whether they will be providing software upgrades to consumers for the many HD radio^TM receivers out there.

I have been following a discussion on AM quality over the last few days. It seems many engineering types at least, acknowledge that analog AM can sound good, if not more natural than FM. The addition of IBOC hybrid mode on AM station has created more noise and further degraded the station’s main signal by reducing the bandwidth to less than 5 kHz.

Tonight I am listening to WWVA on 1170 kHz, and there is this horrific white noise/hash over top of the station. Same thing on 1190 kHz, all courtesy of WHAM 1180’s IBOC transmission. It is one thing to trash your own station, limiting the analog audio response to 5 kHz. It is quite another thing to trash the adjacent frequencies with noise making them unlistenable.

Here is a brief clip (recorded at 8:00 pm EDT, March 24, 2010):

The second clip, WWVA has faded out (recorded at 9:10 pm EDT, March 24, 2010)

The audio in these videos is adequate but not the best, still, it is pretty clear that there is a whole bunch of white noise on top of WWVA’s signal and on 1190 where no station is coming in. The only conclusion that I can draw is that WHAM is operating with their IBOC turned on. This was recorded at a location that is 197 miles from WHAM and 364 miles from WWVA. I have made several better recordings directly into the computer without the video frequency readout reference.

In 1990, the FCC mandated NRSC-2 (73.44) spectral mask on all AM stations, requiring them to put in brick wall filtering to limit the bandwidth to 10 kHz or less. They also require all AM stations to do “equipment performance measurements” (73.1590) to verify that the stations are complying with FCC regulations. This was done because of excessive sideband splatter by AM broadcasters creating interference to adjacent channel stations. I agree in principle with the NRSC-2 standard, I think it serves a purpose. Why then, are stations allowed to interfere with other stations with IBOC signals? Even though Ibiquity has put up a spectral mask that complies with NRSC-2, it still creates interference. Isn’t this a double standard? A station in Pennsylvania gets fined $4,000.00 for operating past its sign-off time (because operating after sign-off might create harmful interference), yet, WHAM gets to generate noise all night and drowned out adjacent channel stations that are hundreds of miles away.

In the meantime, if the FCC inspector shows up at a station that has not made the required “equipment performance measurements” they will get a fine too.

Am I crazy, or is it hypocritical bull shit to fine one station for potentially harmful interference, but then the FCC to ignores its own rules and allows another type of interference? Hint: I am not crazy.

I have recorded this in .wav format and I am sending it to the FCC with an interference complaint letter. It is about time somebody made some noise about this noise. Apparently, there are many engineers who feel the same way. Will Ibiquity listen, or will they keep doing CPR on a corpse?

Local Community Radio Act (HR 1147/S 592)

I sent off a letter to my Senators and Congressman this morning regarding HR 1147/S 592 AKA Local Community Radio Act. Basically, I am against this. Not that I don’t appreciate what it is trying to accomplish. I believe the technical degradation of the FM band is a higher concern. After all, if we turn the FM band into what the AM band has become, nobody will listen to the radio.

Radio is too important to ruin. Here is what I wrote:

I strongly urge you NOT to support the bipartisan Local Community Radio Act (HR 1147/ S. 592) sponsored by Reps. Mike Doyle and Lee Terry and Sens. Maria Cantwell and John McCain.

In spite of what many have said, Low Power FM (LPFM) contributes to the technical degradation of the FM service. By adding more and more signals covering every possible spot in the FM spectrum, the noise floor is raised causing many FM receivers to “picket fence” which is annoying to most listeners.

Radio has suffered enough degradation over the last few decades. AM radio is now so fraught with interference, especially at night, most people do not even consider listening to it. Packing the FM dial with thousands of low power operators will create the same problems and cause most people to abandon radio altogether.

I am a strong proponent of 1st amendment rights. I believe the sponsors of this bill are well intentioned, however misinformed. I believe that the deregulation of commercial radio allowing one company to own 1,200 radio licenses has created most of the problems we see today.

Clear Channel, in particular, has removed almost all localism from radio, creating bland canned music channels. Their modus operandi was to buy a group of radio stations in a market, combine the stations under one roof, get rid of most of the staff, and drop the advertising rates so other local stations could not compete. Non-Clear Channel stations were then forced to make cuts in there advertising rates and or expenses to stay in business.

The answer is not to create a bigger mess. Instead:

1. Push the FCC to tighten ownership rules. In some ways the horse is already out of the barn, but it would prevent another Clear Channel from forming in the future.
2. If major radio groups go bankrupt and are broken up, allow it to happen, do not intervene. This will allow real radio broadcasters to pick up the pieces and put something together. Perhaps investigate supporting small radio owners by waiving FCC fees and limited tax breaks for a period of time.
3. Push the FCC to continue with the localism hearings they were conducting.
4. Push the FCC to update the EAS and make a workable Emergency Alert System in the US.

Radio is too important a resource to have it ruined. Of all the media outlets, radio is the most robust. During an emergency often times the utility grid is down. Many radio stations have backup power generators and can provide vital information when the internet, phone system, cable TV network, cellphone system, e-mail, etc are down.

Radio can provide local government important mass access to their constituents during elections and at other important times. Radio is free, there are no subscription fees, no service providers, etc. Almost everyone owns a radio, most people own several.

Small savvy radio owners can make a go of it, provided the deck is not stacked against them.

Please DO NOT support the Local Community Radio Act. Thank you.

If you want to get involved, you can go to the Free Press website, there you will find a link to a “Take Action” page (not sure that link will work). Again, I am not opposed to Free Press or even Free Radio. Packing the FM spectrum with LPFM, translators and the like will only create reception problems. This is just become another reason for people not to listen to radio.

EAS

EAS, or more properly, the Emergency Alert System, is a government-mandated system of encoders and decoders designed by the federal government to alert the public in case of war or other emergency. It and its predecessor, EBS (Emergency Broadcast System) have never been activated by the federal government. Both systems, however, are used extensively by local and state governments for things like weather alerts, amber alerts, etc.

Back in the mid-90s the FCC had a chance to redo the EBS and produce something that was a streamlined and effective tool for public warning. Unfortunately, the EAS system is neither. Rather, it is a cumbersome system of weekly and monthly tests scheduled around pre-conceived notions that how the system is tested every week will be how the system works in an emergency. In practice, this is generally a good theory of system design, but it has failed miserably with EAS. The reasons why are thus:

Most all emergencies are local or at most state-wide events. To this day, very few state and or local government emergency managers would be able to activate EAS for their area. The reason is there is minimal if any interface with the LP-1 EAS stations or station personnel. Ignorance and apathy on behalf of both radio station personnel and government officials is the main culprit.
Most stations are un-maned for large portions of the day. Even if government officials could/did call the station, chances are, nobody would be there. If by chance, arrangements were made to contact station employees at home, they would have to interface with the EAS equipment remotely, which adds complexity to an already complex system.
EAS messages are still mainly relayed from radio station to radio station, the so-called daisy chain network that has been shown numerous times to be unreliable.
The system of SAME codes, FIPS identifiers is not necessarily bad, the application in this case leaves something to be desired. The FCC had a chance to update EAS before the HDTV rollout. One would assume that any improvements could have been built into the new TV sets that are now being sold, but again, that opportunity was missed. For example, I suggested that each TV have a set-up screen option where the owner could input their zip code. They could also choose what types of alerts they would want to know about and even base the alerts types on the time of day. Live in a flood zone, the FFW (Flash Flood Warning) 24/7. Live in tornado alley, TOR (Tornado Warning), etc. The cable companies then pipe in the local NOAA all hazards radio station. All the sudden there is a real national alert system in place using mostly non-broadcast wireless systems. Add to that the ability to sign up for emergency e-mails and text messages for specific areas (many places are currently doing this) and there is multiple message paths.

The system as is not reliable and sooner or later that will be shown with a large-scale failure. Recently, the FCC held a summit with the Department of Homeland Security. The cliff notes version of this event is: Yes, the system can be made better. Let’s keep throwing the same ideas at the wall and see if anything sticks this time. Excuse me if I don’t do back flips, this is the same information that was discussed during the last “let’s revamp EAS” discussion back in 2005 (04-296).

In the meantime, the EAS continues to be a good fundraiser for the FCC enforcement bureau. Which, you know, it is easier to go to a licensed radio station and bust them for not re-transmitting the RMT (Required Monthly Test) than it is to go out and bust some of the numerous pirate radio operators, some of whom are operating in the same city/metropolitan area as a field office.

The shame of it is, it could work without a great deal of cost, very well.